CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION

(1)

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT

CHIEFS OF STAFF

INSTRUCTION

J-7 CJCSI 1800.01A

DISTRIBUTION: S 1 December 2000

OFFICER PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION POLICY References: See Enclosure G

1. Purpose. This instruction promulgates the policies, procedures, objectives, and responsibilities for officer professional military education (PME).

2. Cancellation. CJCSI 1800.01, 1 March 1996, “Officer Professional Military Education Policy” is canceled.

3. Applicability. This instruction applies to the Joint Staff, the National Defense University (NDU), and the Military Services. It is distributed to other agencies for information only.

4. Chairman’s Vision. The US military of the future must channel the vitality and innovation of its people and leverage technological

opportunities to achieve new levels of effectiveness in joint warfighting.

This is the thrust of the Chairman's Joint Vision 2020 (JV 2020), and

PME must play a significant role in developing the type of Armed Forces outlined in the Chairman's vision. Focused on achieving dominance across the range of military operations through the application of new operational concepts, JV 2020 builds upon the conceptual template established by JV 2010 to guide the continuing transformation of America's Armed Forces.

a. The fundamental challenge for our Armed Forces is to shape and respond in the current and near-term security environment while

concurrently preparing for the future. Because our forces are engaged worldwide every day, their transformation is necessarily evolutionary. This transformation is not a choice between people and technology, it is

(2)

the development of doctrine, organizations, training and education, leaders, and people that effectively takes advantage of the technology to give the nation the best military capability.

b. A crucial issue will be our ability to conduct effective, dominant information operations. As JV 2020 asserts, information superiority is a key enabler for the emerging operational concepts of dominant

maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection. The key concepts and implications of information operations must be addressed at all PME institutions in a manner commensurate with their mission in the PME system.

c. The men and women of our Armed Forces are the nation’s most important strategic resource. Only a force of dedicated, highly educated, and well-trained men and women capable of leveraging new ideas will succeed in the complex and fast-paced environment of future military operations. Moreover, this force must exhibit honor, integrity,

competence, physical and moral courage, dedication to ideals, respect for human dignity, the highest standards of personal and institutional

conduct, teamwork, and selfless service. Thus, it is imperative to

maintain sustained emphasis on ethical conduct and the highest ideals of duty, honor, and integrity at all PME institutions.

5. Policy

a. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as defined by law, is responsible for the following tasks related to military education:

(1) “Formulating policies for coordinating the military education and training of members of the armed forces” (subparagraph (a)(5)(C), reference a).

(2) Advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense by periodically reviewing and revising the curriculum of each school of the National Defense University to enhance the education and training of officers in joint matters (paragraph (b), reference b).

b. This instruction outlines the policies and procedures necessary to fulfill CJCS PME responsibilities. Enclosures B through D address specific PME policies, assign responsibilities for policy implementation, and outline the PME review process. Enclosure E outlines standards, learning areas, and objectives that define the JPME program, and Enclosure F addresses JPME oversight processes. Enclosure G is a list of references pertaining to this instruction.

(3)

CJCSI 1800.01A 1 December 2000

3

6. Summary of Changes. Provided below are the major changes from the 1 March 1996 Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP) that have been incorporated into this draft revision.

a. The layout has undergone major revision to improve its organization and readability.

b. Language concerning the importance of professional values has been added to the basic instruction.

c. Guidance concerning precommissioning- and primary-level education programs has been expanded within the Officer Professional Military Educational Framework.

d. Information on the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course (JFOWC) and the Joint Forces Air Component Commander Course (JFACC) has been removed from the Officer Professional Military Educational

Framework.

e. An appendix containing the initial certification dates for all accredited joint education programs has been included in the instruction.

f. The definitions of military faculty and faculty for the purpose of computing student-to-faculty ratios have been clarified.

g. The resident program student-to-faculty ratios have been changed from goals to standards.

h. The enclosure on NDU policy has been removed from this instruction and upgraded to a CJCS NDU policy instruction.

i. Distance education policies for intermediate and senior-level colleges have been included.

j. Criteria for CJCS chairs have been modified to include completion of both phases of JPME.

k. Student quota reallocation procedures for NDU schools have been clarified.

l. The Military Education Coordination Conference (MECC) is

redesignated the Military Education Coordination Council (MECC), and the organization, purpose, and functions have been modified.

(4)

m. Procedures for identifying special areas of emphasis have been modified and clarified.

n. The format for the triennial report by the Military Services on their precommissioning and primary-level joint education programs has been modified and added to the instruction.

o. The joint learning areas and objectives for all levels of professional military education have been modified.

p. The Process for Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE) has been clarified and information added concerning the sequencing and

scheduling of PAJE reviews.

q. The format for the institutional self-study has been modified. r. Language in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 changed the name of Armed Forces Staff College to Joint Forces Staff College (P.L. 106-398, sec 913).

7. Releasability. This instruction is approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited. DOD components (to include the combatant commands), other Federal agencies, and the public may obtain copies of this instruction through the Internet from the CJCS Directives Home Page--http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine. Copies are also available through the Government Printing Office on the Joint Electronic Library CD-ROM. 8. Effective Date. This instruction is effective upon receipt.

9. Revisions. Submit recommended changes to this policy to the Joint Staff, J-7, Joint Education Branch, 7000 Joint Staff, Pentagon,

Washington, D.C. 20318-7000.

10. Information Requirements. Reports required by this policy are

exempt from normal reporting procedures in accordance with reference c.

HENRY H. SHELTON Chairman

(5)

5 Enclosures:

A -- Officer Professional Military Education Policy Appendix A -- Milestones in JPME Development

Appendix B -- Officer Professional Military Educational

Framework

Annex A -- Officer Professional Military Educational

Framework (Figure A-B-A-1)

Appendix C -- Joint Officer Management Educational Requirements

Appendix D -- CJCS Accredited Joint Education programs B -- Policies for Intermediate- and Senior-Level Colleges

C -- PME Review Process D -- Responsibilities

E -- Joint Professional Military Education

Appendix A -- Precommissioning- and Primary-Level Joint Professional Military Education

Annex A -- Format for Triennial Report on Precommissioning and Primary JPME

Appendix B -- Service ILC Joint Learning Areas and Objectives Appendix C -- Service SLC Joint Learning Areas and Objectives Appendix D -- NWC Joint Learning Areas and Objectives

Appendix E -- ICAF Joint Learning Areas and Objectives Appendix F -- JFSC Joint Learning Areas and Objectives

Appendix G -- CAPSTONE Joint Learning Areas and Objectives F -- Process for Accreditation of Joint Education

Appendix A -- PAJE Charter

Appendix B -- Institutional Self-Study G -- References

Glossary

Part I -- Abbreviations and Acronyms Part II -- Definitions

(6)

(7)

i

DISTRIBUTION

Copies

Chief of Staff, US Army ………. 5

Chief of Naval Operations...……. 5

Chief of Staff, US Air Force...……. 5

Commandant of the Marine Corps……….. 5

Commandant, US Coast Guard……… 5

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy)...…… 5

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs)...…… 2

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)………..………...…… 6

Commander in Chief, US Joint Forces Command………. 2

Commander, Joint Warfighting Center…………...….. 5

Director, Joint C4ISR Battle Center...… 2

Commander, Joint Warfare Analysis Center...…. 2

Commander in Chief, US Central Command...….. 2

US Commander in Chief, Europe...….. 2

Commander in Chief, US Pacific Command...….. 2

Commander in Chief, US Southern Command...…. 2

Commander in Chief, US Space Command...….. 2

Director, Joint Information Operations Center……….. 2

Commander in Chief, US Special Operations Command...….. 2

President, Joint Special Operations University……….. 2

Commander in Chief, US Strategic Command...….. 2

Commander in Chief, US Transportation Command...…. 2

Commander, US Forces Korea...…. 2

Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency……… 2

Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization...…. 2

US Representative to the Military Committee, NATO...…. 2

US National Military Representative to Supreme HQ Allied Powers Europe...…. 2

Chairman, US Delegation, Inter-American Defense Board...…. 2

Director, Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization...…. 2

Director, Defense Information Systems Agency...… 2

Director, Defense Intelligence Agency...…. 4

Director, Defense Logistics Agency...…. 2

Director, National Imagery and Mapping Agency...……….. 2

Director, National Security Agency...….. 2

Director, Threat Reduction Agency……….. 2

Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency……….. 2

Director, Washington Headquarters Services... 2

Director, Joint Staff...…. 1

(8)

ii

Director for Intelligence, Joint Staff...… 1

Director for Operations, Joint Staff...…. 1

Director for Logistics, Joint Staff... 1

Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Staff... 1

Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems, Joint Staff... 1

Director for Operational Plans and Joint Force Development, Joint Staff……… 1

Director, Joint History Office...…. 1

Deputy Director, Joint Staff, for Military Education... 1

Director of Management, Joint Staff... 1

Secretary, Joint Staff... 7

Information Management Division... 10

Director, Joint Staff, Office for General/Flag Matters... 1

Commander, US Army Training and Doctrine Command... 5

Chief, National Guard Bureau…... 5

Chief, Army Reserve... 5

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs………. 5

Director of Naval Training and Education...… 5

Chief, Naval Education and Training Command... 5

Director, Naval Reserve...… 5

Chief, Air Force Reserve... 5

Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs... 5

Commander, Air Education and Training Command...… 5

Commander, Marine Corps Combat Development Command...… 5

Military Education Coordination Council Members Commander, Air University... 5

Commandant, Air War College...…….. 5

Commandant, Air Command and Staff College...……….. 5

Commandant, Army War College...…….. 5

Commandant, Army Command and General Staff College... 5

President, Naval War College... 5

Superintendent, Naval Postgraduate School....…... 5

President, Marine Corps University... 5

Director, Marine Corps War College... 5

Director, Marine Corps Command and Staff College... 5

Director, Marine Corps College of Continuing Education..…… 5

President, National Defense University... 5

Commandant, Industrial College of the Armed Forces...… 5

Commandant, National War College... 5

(9)

iii

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES

The following is a list of effective pages for CJCSI 1800.01. Use this list to verify the currency and completeness of the document. An "O"

indicates a page in the original document.

PAGE CHANGE PAGE CHANGE

1 thru 6 O E-A-A-1 thru E-A-A-2 O

i thru x O E-B-1 thru E-B-4 O

A-1 thru A-2 O E-C-1 thru E-C-4 O

A-A-1 thru A-A-2 O E-D-1 thru E-D-4 O

A-B-1 thru A-B-8 O E-E-1 thru E-E-4 O

A-B-A-1 thru A-B-A-2 O E-F-1 thru E-F-4 O

A-C-1 thru A-C-2 O E-G-1 thru E-G-2 O

A-D-1 thru A-D-2 O F-1 thru F-2 O

B-1 thru B-6 O F-A-1 thru F-A-4 O

C-1 thru C-4 O F-B-1 thru F-B-6 O

D-1 thru D-6 O G-1 thru G-2 O

E-1 thru E-4 O GL-1 thru GL-8 O

(10)

iv

(11)

v

RECORD OF CHANGES

Change No. Date of Change Date Entered

Name of Person Entering Change

(12)

vi

(13)

CJCSI 1800.01A 1 December 2000 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chairman’s Vision 1 Policy 3 Distribution i

List of Effective Pages iii

Record of Changes v

Table of Contents vii

ENCLOSURE A – OFFICER PROFESSIONAL MILITARY

EDUCATION POLICY A-1

Overview A-1

Scope A-1

General A-1

APPENDIX A – MILESTONES IN JPME DEVELOPMENT A-A-1

APPENDIX B – THE OFFICER PROFESSIONAL

MILITARY EDUCATION FRAMEWORK A-B-1

Overview A-B-1

PME Relationships A-B-1

The PME Framework A-B-2

JPME within the PME Framework A-B-5

ANNEX A – OFFICER PROFESSIONAL MILITARY

EDUCATION FRAMEWORK (FIGURE 1) A-B-A-1

APPENDIX C – JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS A-C-1

General A-C-1

Educational Requirements for Joint Officers A-C-1

Equivalent JPME Phase I Credit A-C-2

CJCS Accredited JPME Programs A-C-2

APPENDIX D – CJCS ACCREDITED JOINT PROFESSIONAL MILITARY

EDUCATION PROGRAMS A-D-1

ENCLOSURE B – POLICIES FOR INTERMEDIATE-

AND SENIOR-LEVEL COLLEGES B-1

General B-1

International Student Participation B-1

Civilian Participation B-1

Curricula B-1

(14)

viii

Distance Education (DE) Programs B-4

ENCLOSURE C – PME REVIEW PROCESS C-1

Overview C-1 Feedback Mechanisms C-1 Update Mechanisms C-2 JPME Assessments C-3 Conclusion C-4 ENCLOSURE D – RESPONSIBILITIES D-1 Overview D-1 General D-1

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff D-1

Service Chiefs D-2

Director, Joint Staff D-3

Office of the Director, Joint Staff D-4

Director for Manpower and Personnel,

Joint Staff D-4

Director for Operational Plans and Joint

Force Development, Joint Staff D-4

Deputy Director, Joint Staff, for Military

Education D-4 ENCLOSURE E – JOINT PROFESSIONAL MILITARY

EDUCATION E-1

General E-1

Common Educational Standards E-1

Levels of Learning Achievement E-2

APPENDIX A – PRECOMMISSIONING- AND PRIMARY- LEVEL JOINT PROFESSIONAL

MILITARY EDUCATION E-A-1

Joint Education at the Precommissioning

-Level E-A-1

Joint Education at the Primary-Level E-A-2

ANNEX A - FORMAT FOR TRIENNIAL REPORT ON PRECOMMISSIONING AND

PRIMARY JPME E-A-2

APPENDIX B – SERVICE ILC JOINT LEARNING

AREAS AND OBJECTIVES E-B-1

APPENDIX C – SERVICE SLC JOINT LEARNING

AREAS AND OBJECTIVES E-C-1

APPENDIX D – NWC JOINT LEARNING AREAS

AND OBJECTIVES E-D-1

APPENDIX E – ICAF JOINT LEARNING AREAS

(15)

ix

APPENDIX F – JFSC JOINT LEARNING AREAS

AND OBJECTIVES E-F-1

APPENDIX G – CAPSTONE JOINT LEARNING AREAS

AND OBJECTIVES E-G-1

ENCLOSURE F – THE PROCESS FOR ACCREDITATION

OF JOINT EDUCATION F-1 Overview F-1 Purpose F-1 Background F-1 The Process F-1 PAJE Sequence F-2

Scheduling of PAJE Reviews F-2

APPENDIX A – PAJE CHARTER F-A-1

APPENDIX B – INSTITUTIONAL SELF-STUDY F-B-1

Introduction F-B-1

Submission F-B-1

Self-Study Format F-B-1

ENCLOSURE G – REFERENCES G-1

GLOSSARY

PART I – ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS GL-1

(16)

x

(17)

A-1 Enclosure A

ENCLOSURE A

OFFICER PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION POLICY

1. Overview. The Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP) defines CJCS objectives and policies regarding the educational

institutions that comprise the PME system. It also identifies the fundamental responsibilities of the major military educational

participants in achieving those objectives. The intent of the PME system is to raise the level of proficiency among the members of the US Armed Forces, and to support the educational requirements of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Services, the combatant commanders, and the other Defense agencies.

2. Scope. This instruction addresses PME from precommissioning to General Officer/Flag Officer levels; however, its primary emphasis is on the intermediate and senior levels of PME.

3. General

a. All officers should make a continuing, strong personal commitment to their professional development beyond the formal schooling offered in our military educational system. Officers share responsibility for

ensuring continued growth in themselves and others.

b. The Services and NDU provide PME to uniformed members of the US Armed Forces, international officers, eligible Federal Government civilians, and other approved students.

c. Each Service operates its officer military educational system

primarily to develop officers with expertise and knowledge appropriate to their grade, branch, and warfare specialty.

d. NDU institutions enhance the education of selected officers and civilian officials in national security strategy, national resource

management, information resources management, information operations, and joint and multinational campaign planning and warfighting.

e. Close cooperation between the educational and training

communities is required to focus training and educational objectives on common goals, reduce redundancy, and develop the best possible

(18)

(19)

A-A-1 Appendix A

Enclosure A

APPENDIX A TO ENCLOSURE A MILESTONES IN JPME DEVELOPMENT

1. Prior to the close of World War II, there was great interest at the highest levels of the government in the shape and direction of the Armed Forces in the postwar era. Accordingly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) chartered the Richardson Committee (1945) to examine the entire organizational structure of the military and recommend improvements based on the experiences of the war. The committee proposed

establishing the Department of Defense from the War Department and Department of the Navy and strongly advocated establishing a system for joint education and training.

2. Subsequent Service studies emphasized the need for officers to possess a broader understanding of developments outside traditional Armed Forces missions. These studies echoed the recommendation for establishment of joint national security schools. Recommendations of the Baxter Board (1955) and the National War College Ad Hoc Committee (1956) led to revision of the JCS General Plan for Coordinating the

Education of the Members of the Armed Forces.

3. The status of the military educational network remained virtually unchanged from the mid-1950s until 1975. That year, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Clements, chaired the DOD Committee on Excellence in Education. The committee recommended many changes to the existing structure, including establishing the NDU at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.

4. In 1982, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General David C. Jones, chartered an internal study to identify ways of improving the organizational and operational processes of the JCS system. A major finding of this effort was that officers assigned to joint duty needed better education, more joint experience, and improved incentives. In 1984, the JCS issued the Joint Professional Military Education Policy Document to address these concerns.

5. In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 (GNA) became law, leading to an intensive reassessment of the military educational system. During the 3 years following the GNA, five major studies assessed the system and recommended improvements.

a. The Dougherty Board on Senior Military Education (1987) focused on the need for increased and improved joint education. This board recommended greater jointness through improvements in the structure,

(20)

A-A-2 Appendix A curriculum content, and student activity of intermediate-level colleges

(ILCs) and senior-level colleges (SLCs).

b. The Rostow-Endicott Assessment on the Teaching of Strategy and Foreign Policy at the Senior War Colleges (1987) reinforced the

importance of educating officers and government officials in national security. This report provided insight regarding improvement of faculty, student, and administrative processes to increase educational

effectiveness.

c. The Morgan Initial Certification Group (1989) recommended CJCS Professional Joint Education curricula validation of the 10 ILCs and SLCs for academic year 1988-1989, with follow-on Phase I accreditation for classes thereafter. The group also recommended improvements to the officer military educational process.

d. Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commissioned The National Defense University Transition Planning Committee (also known as the Admiral Long Committee) in 1989. The committee evaluated the need for and feasibility of transforming NDU into a National Center for Strategic Studies.

e. In light of the GNA, a panel on military education, chaired by

Representative Ike Skelton of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives (1987 to 1989), assessed a wide range of issues

confronting military education. The panel made numerous, specific recommendations for improving military education. Foremost was establishment of a two-phased JPME system to educate joint officers at Service and NDU schools.

6. General John M. Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, convened a Joint Professional Military Education Review Panel in

November 1994. The panel’s primary purpose was to assess the ability of the existing PME framework to provide an optimum system for preparing joint warfighters and strategists in the future. Several panel

recommendations were incorporated into the previous version of this instruction.

7. JV 2010 provided the CJCS conceptual blueprint for preparing the Armed Forces for the 21st century. JV 2020 builds upon and expands this conceptual template for change that will guide the evolution of future joint doctrine, PME, and training.

(21)

A-B-1 Appendix B

Enclosure A

APPENDIX B TO ENCLOSURE A

OFFICER PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK 1. Overview. The Officer Professional Military Educational Framework (see Figure 1) reflects the dynamic system of officer career education. It identifies areas of emphasis at each educational level and provides joint curriculum guidance for PME institutions. It is a comprehensive frame of reference depicting the sequential and progressive nature of PME.

a. The framework structures the development of Service and joint officers by organizing the PME system into five military educational levels, precommissioning, primary, intermediate, senior, and general officer/flag officer. It defines the focus of each educational level in terms of the major levels of war, tactical, operational, and strategic, and it links the educational levels so each builds upon the knowledge and values gained at previous levels.

b. The framework also recognizes both the distinctiveness and interdependence of joint and Service schools in officer education. Service schools, in keeping with their role of developing Service specialists, place emphasis on education primarily from a Service

perspective in accordance with joint learning areas and objectives. Joint schools emphasize joint education from a joint perspective.

2. PME Relationships

a. PME entails the systematic instruction of professionals in subjects enhancing their knowledge of the science and art of war. The PME

system should produce:

(1) Officers educated in the profession of arms.

(2) Critical thinkers who view military affairs in the broadest context and are capable of identifying and evaluating likely changes and associated responses affecting the employment of US military forces.

(3) Senior officers who can develop and execute national military strategies that effectively employ the Armed Forces in concert with other instruments of national power to achieve the goals of national security strategy and policy.

b. JPME is that portion of PME that supports fulfillment of the educational requirements for joint officer management. It consists of CJCS-certified or accredited JPME programs at the intermediate and

(22)

A-B-2 Appendix B senior levels, as well as Joint Staff-monitored preparatory JPME

programs at the precommissioning and primary levels. 3. The PME Framework

a. PME Levels. The framework relates five military educational levels to five significant phases in an officer’s career.

(1) Precommissioning. Military education received at institutions and through programs producing commissioned officers upon

graduation.

(2) Primary. Education typically received at grades O-1 through O-3.

(3) Intermediate. Education typically received at grade O-4. (4) Senior. Education typically received at grades O-5 or O-6. (5) General Officer/Flag Officer. Education received as a GO/FO. b. Levels of War. The framework portrays the focus of each

educational level in relation to the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war as outlined in the Universal Joint Task List (UJTL -- reference d). It recognizes that PME curricula educate across levels of war.

c. Precommissioning-Level Education. (1) Institutions and Courses

(a) Military Service Academies.

(b) Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) units.

(c) Federal and State Officer Candidate Schools (OCS) and Officer Training Schools (OTS).

(2) Focus. Precommissioning-level education focuses on

preparing officer candidates to become commissioned officers within the Military Department that administers the precommissioning program. The curriculums are oriented toward providing candidates with a basic grounding in the US defense establishment and their chosen Military Service, as well as a foundation in leadership, management, ethics, and other subjects necessary to prepare them to serve as commissioned officers.

(23)

A-B-3 Appendix B

Enclosure A

d. Primary-Level Education (1) Institutions and Courses

(a) Branch, warfare, or staff specialty schools. (b) Primary-level PME courses.

(2) Focus. Primary-level education focuses on preparing newly commissioned and/or junior officers to serve in their assigned branch or warfare or staff specialty. The curriculums are predominantly Service oriented, and primarily address the tactical level of war, as well as

technical subject matter. Depending on the Military Service, this level of PME will occur at various times and intervals within the early years of an officer’s service.

e. Intermediate-Level Education (1) Institutions and Courses

(a) Service Intermediate-Level PME Institutions. 1. Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). 2. Army Command and General Staff College (ACGSC).

3. College of Naval Command and Staff (CNCS). 4. Marine Corps Command and Staff College (MCCSC).

5. Marine Corps College of Continuing Education (MCCCE).

(b) Joint and Combined Staff Officer School (JCSOS) at Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC).

(c) Service-recognized equivalent fellowships and international military colleges.

(2) Focus. Intermediate-level education focuses on warfighting within the context of operational art. Students expand their

understanding of joint force employment at the operational and tactical levels of war. They gain a better understanding of joint and Service

(24)

A-B-4 Appendix B perspectives. Inherent in this level is development of an officer’s analytic

capabilities and creative thought processes. In addition to continuing development of their combined arms expertise, they are introduced to theater strategy and plans, national military strategy, and national security strategy and policy.

f. Senior-Level Education

(1) Institutions and Courses

(a) Service Senior-Level PME Institutions. 1. Air War College (AWC).

2. Army War College (USAWC). 3. College of Naval Warfare (CNW). 4. Marine Corps War College (MCWAR). (b) Joint Senior-Level PME Institutions.

1. National War College (NWC).

2. Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF). 3. Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS) at JFSC.

(c) Service-recognized equivalent fellowships and international military colleges.

(2) Focus. Senior-level education focuses on strategy, and the art and science of developing and using instruments of national power

(diplomatic, economic, military, and informational), as necessary, during peace and war to afford the maximum support to policies in order to increase the probabilities and favorable consequences of victory and to lessen the chances of defeat. Studies at these colleges should emphasize analysis, foster critical examination, encourage creativity, and provide a progressively broader educational experience.

g. Education at the GO/FO Level

(1) CAPSTONE course at NDU is required for all newly selected GO/FOs. They must attend CAPSTONE within approximately 2 years

(25)

A-B-5 Appendix B

Enclosure A

after confirmation of selection to 0-7 unless such attendance is waived per DODI 1300.20 (reference e).

(2) Focus. CAPSTONE is a 6-week course that focuses on joint matters and national security strategy.

4. JPME Within the PME Framework. Officer professional development and progression through the PME framework is a Service responsibility. Embedded within the PME system, however, is a program of joint

education (JPME) overseen by the Joint Staff and designed to fulfill the educational requirements for joint officer management as mandated by the GNA of 1986. This JPME program comprises curriculum

components at all five educational levels designed to develop

progressively the knowledge, analytical skills, perspectives, and values essential for US officers to function effectively in joint, multinational, and interagency operations.

a. JPME Structure and Flow. JPME includes five elements: (1)

preparatory JPME taught at precommissioning and primary schools, (2) JPME Phase I taught at Service intermediate and senior-level schools, (3) JPME Phase II taught at Joint Forces Staff College. (4) the separate

JPME programs at National War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, (5) the CAPSTONE course for GO/FOs. All officers should complete precommissioning and primary JPME. Officers desiring to meet the educational requirement for joint officer management should then either complete JPME Phase I, followed by attendance at Phase II prior to or while assigned to a joint duty assignment (JDA), or complete NWC or ICAF prior to a JDA. Finally, officers selected for promotion to GO/FO must attend and complete CAPSTONE within approximately 2 years after confirmation of selection to 0-7 unless such attendance is waived per DODI 1300.20 (reference e, enclosure 8, paragraph E8.6).

b. JPME Emphasis

(1) Precommissioning Level. In addition to an introduction to their respective Service, students should have knowledge of the basic US defense structure, roles and missions of other Military Services, the combatant command structure, and the nature of American military power and joint warfare. (Appendix A to Enclosure E identifies joint learning objectives for precommissioning-level programs.)

(2) Primary Level. The programs at this level address the fundamentals of joint warfare, JTF organization, and the combatant command structure; the characteristics of a joint campaign; how national and joint systems support tactical-level operations; and the capabilities of the relevant systems of the other Services. (Appendix A to

(26)

A-B-6 Appendix B Enclosure E identifies joint learning objectives for primary-level

programs.)

(3) Intermediate Level

(a) JPME Phase I (Service Colleges). Service ILCs teach joint operations from the standpoint of Service forces in a joint force supported by Service component commands. (Appendix B to Enclosure F identifies joint learning areas and objectives for Service intermediate-level programs.)

(b) JPME Phase II (Joint Forces Staff College). The Joint and Combined Staff Officers School (JCSOS) at JFSC examines joint operations from the standpoint of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a combatant commander, and a joint task force (JTF) commander. It further develops joint attitudes and

perspectives, exposes officers to and increases their understanding of Service cultures while concentrating on joint staff operations. (Appendix F to Enclosure E identifies joint learning objectives for the JCSOS.)

(4) Senior Level

(a) JPME Phase I (Service Colleges). Service SLCs provide JPME Phase I education. Service SLCs address theater and national level strategies and processes. Curriculums focus on how the unified commanders, Joint Staff, and Department of Defense use the

instruments of national power to develop and carry out national military strategy. (Appendix C to Enclosure E identifies joint learning areas and objectives for Service senior level programs.)

(b) JPME Phase II (Joint Forces Staff College). The JCWS at JFSC provides JPME Phase II for selected graduates of Service SLCs to further develop joint attitudes and perspectives and hone warfighting skills at the operational level of war. (Appendix F to Enclosure E identifies joint learning objectives for JCWS.)

(c) NWC. NWC provides a separate, unitary JPME

curriculums reflecting the distinct educational focus and joint character of its mission, thus, JPME Phases I and II do not apply to NWC. NWC’s senior-level JPME curriculum focuses on national security strategy -- the art and science of developing, applying, and coordinating the

instruments of national power (diplomatic, economic, military, and informational) to achieve objectives contributing to national security. (Appendix D to Enclosure E identifies joint learning areas and objectives for NWC.)

(27)

A-B-7 Appendix B

Enclosure A

(d) ICAF. ICAF provides a separate, unitary JPME

curricula reflecting the distinct educational focus and joint character of its mission, thus JPME Phases I and II do not apply to ICAF. ICAF’s senior-level JPME curriculum focuses on the resource component of national power, national resources, and its integration into development and execution of national security strategy. (Appendix E to Enclosure E identifies joint learning areas and objectives for ICAF.)

(e) GO/FO Level. CAPSTONE is designed to make newly selected GO/FOs more effective at planning and executing joint and multinational operations, as well as more knowledgeable of when and how these operations support national strategic goals and objectives. (Appendix G to Enclosure E identifies joint learning areas and objectives for GO/FO-level JPME.)

(28)

A-B-8 Appendix B (INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

(29)

CJCSI 1800.01A 1 December 2000 A-B-A-1 Annex A Appendix B E nclosure A ANNE X A T O APP E N D IX B T O E NCLOSU RE A 0-7/0-8 GENERAL/FLAG - CAPSTONE

- Joint Matters and national Security - Interagency Process - Multinational Operations Joint CAPSTONE - National Security Strategy - Joint Operational Art 0-5/0-6 SENIOR

- Air War College - Army War College - College of Naval Warfare - Marine Corps War College - Industrial College of the Armed Forces2

- National War College2

- Joint Forces Staff College3

Joint & Combined Warfighting School

- Service Schools: National Military Strategy - NCW: National Security Strategy

- ICAF: National Security Strategy with emphasis on the Resource Components

JPME Phase I

- National Security Strategy - National Planning systems and Processes

- National Military Strategy and Organization

- Theater Strategy and Campaigning

- The Role of Technology in 21st

Century Warfare

0-3/0-4

INTERMEDIATE

- Air Command & Staff College - Army Command & General Staff College

- College of Naval Command & Staff

- Marine Corps Command & Staff College

- Joint Forces Staff College3

Joint & Combined Staff Officer School

- Warfighting within the context of Operational Art

JPME Phase I

- National Military Capabilities and Command Structure - Joint Doctrine

- Joint and Multinational Forces at the Operational Level of War - Joint Planning and Execution Processes

- Information Operations

JPME Phase II 3

- National Security and Military Strategy in development of theater strategies

- Theater Engagement and Campaign Planning with joint, multinational and interagency organizations

- JSPS, JOPES and operational-level battlespace systems integration through deliberate and crisis planning

0-1/0-2/0-3

PRIMARY

- Branch, Warfare, or Staff Specialty Schools - Primary-Level PME Courses - Assigned Branch, Warfare, or Staff Specialty Joint Awareness - Joint Warfare Fundamentals - Joint Campaigning CADET/MIDSHIPMAN PRECOMMISSIONING SERVICE ACADEMIES ROTC OCS/OTS CONCEPTUAL AWARENESS OF ALL LEVELS Introduction To Services’ Missions Joint Introduction

- National Military Capabilities and Organization - Foundation of Joint Warfare

OFFICER MILITARY EDUCATION FRAMEWORK1 _{(Figure 1)}

GRADE EDUCATION LEVEL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND COURSES LEVELS OF WAR EMPHASIZED FOCUS OF MILITARY EDUCATION JOINT EMPHASIS TACTICAL OPERATIONAL STRATEGIC 1

Refer to Appendix B to Enclosure A for a comprehensive description of PME

2

ICAF and NWC offer full JPME (Phase I & II not applicable )

3

(30)

A-B-A-2 Annex A

Appendix B

(31)

A-C-1 Appendix C

Enclosure A

APPENDIX C TO ENCLOSURE A

JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

1. General

a. This appendix provides guidance for the Military Services concerning statutory educational requirements based on title 10, US Code, Chapter 38. Additional guidance concerning joint officer management in general can be found in reference e.

b. Within the DOD Joint Officer Management Program, a selected officer with the educational and joint duty prerequisites may be designated as “joint specialty officer (JSO)” or “JSO nominee,” an

administrative classification that identifies an officer as having education and/or experience in joint matters.

2. Educational Requirements for Joint Officers. To satisfy the

educational prerequisites for JSO/JSO nominee designation, officers must receive credit for completing a CJCS-certified or accredited program of JPME. This can be accomplished in several ways:

a. An officer completes JPME Phase I at a Service ILC or SLC. This is followed by completion of JPME Phase II at JCSOS or JCWS. The

following additional conditions apply:

(1) Attendance at JPME Phase II prior to completion of JPME Phase I requires approval of a Direct Entry Waiver by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Such waiver requests must be submitted in writing by the officer’s Service to the J-1, Joint Staff, a minimum of 60 days prior to the start of the JCSOS or JCWS class to which the Service desires to send the officer.

(2) Waivers are to be held to a minimum, with approval granted on a case-by-case basis for compelling reasons. Waiver requests require justification and must demonstrate critical career timing precluding the officer from attending JPME Phase I prior to Phase II. Requests must address the officer’s qualifications, JSO potential, and plans for

subsequent assignment to a JDA. Waiver approval must be received prior to attendance at JCSOS or JCWS. Waiver approval is for the sequencing of JPME phases only and does not remove the JSO educational requirement to complete JPME Phase I.

(32)

A-C-2 Appendix C (3) Officers granted Direct Entry Waivers will be scheduled to

attend the 5-day Joint Transition Course conducted by the JFSC immediately prior to beginning their Phase II course at JFSC.

b. An officer completes an intermediate- or senior-level international military education program for which JPME Phase I equivalent credit has been approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (This

method for receiving JPME Phase I credit is subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this appendix.) This is followed by completion of JPME Phase II at JCSOS or JCWS.

c. An officer completes either NWC or ICAF.

3. Equivalent JPME Phase I Credit. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorizes the Chiefs of the Services to award JPME Phase I credit to officers who successfully complete a resident international military college, subject to the provisions cited below.

a. The resident international military college is on the CJCS annually approved JPME Phase I Equivalency list.

b. Individuals selected for these programs meet the same rigorous selection criteria as other ILC and SLC PME attendees.

c. The Service grants PME credit for completion of the international military college program.

4. CJCS Accredited JPME Programs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff accredits JPME programs at all ILCs and SLCs under the

provisions of the PAJE (Enclosure F). The initial certification dates for all currently accredited JPME courses of instruction are provided at

(33)

A-D-1 Appendix D

Enclosure A

APPENDIX D TO ENCLOSURE A

CJCS ACCREDITED JOINT EDUCATION PROGRAMS

1. General. This appendix identifies the initial CJCS-certification dates for all intermediate and senior-level JPME programs that have been accredited. All programs have retained their accreditation status unless otherwise indicated.

2. CJCS Initial JPME Certification Data

Program Initial Certification Date JPME

Phase(s)

NWC 1 June 1989 Full

ICAF 1 June 1989 Full

SIWS 10 May 19951_I_and_II

JFSC (ILC) 1 June 19892_I_and_II

JCSOS (JFSC3₎ _{1 July 1990}4_II

JCWS (JFSC3₎ _{25 October 1994} _II

USAWC 1 June 19895_I

USAWC (Nonresident) 16 February 1999 I

ACGSC (Resident) 1 June 19895

(Phase I credit for AY1990)

I

ACGSC (Nonresident) 3 July 1991

(1st graduates produced in 1992)

I

CNW 1 June 19895_I

CNCS (Resident) 1 June 19895_I

CCE (Navy ILC Nonresident) 29 March 1991 I

NPS 11 December 19956_I

AWC 1 June 19895_I

ACSC (Resident) 1 June 19895_I

ACSC (Nonresident) 2 November 1990 I

MCWAR 18 December 1992 I

MCCSC (Resident) 1 June 19895_I

MCCCE (Nonresident) 28 January 1994 I

Notes.

1_{School of Information Warfare and Strategy (SIWS) terminated as an SLC after Academic}

Year (AY) 95-96.

2_{Certified as JPME Phase I ILC, prior to transformation into current configuration as}

JPME Phase II program. Graduates of JFSC ILC program in January 1989, January 1990, and June 1990 received both JPME Phase I and II credit.

(34)

A-D-2 Appendix D

4_{First class to receive JPME Phase II credit was conducted July-September 1990.}

5 _{Certain officers who completed the joint track program portion of Service ILCs and SLCs}

in AY 1989 received both JPME Phase I and II credit. Officers who completed Service ILCs and SLCs in AY 1985 through AY 1989 and completed JCSOS (JFSC) by 1 January 1994 received both JPME Phase I and II credit.

6 _{NPS terminated its JPME program after AY 2000. Phase I currently provided through}

(35)

B-1 Enclosure B

ENCLOSURE B

POLICIES FOR INTERMEDIATE AND SENIOR-LEVEL COLLEGES 1. General. This enclosure outlines policies applicable to intermediate and senior-level PME programs.

2. International Officer Participation. The Services and NDU may maintain international officer programs that best meet their respective colleges’ missions. International officer participation will be consistent with relevant security considerations and appropriate directives.

3. Civilian Participation. The Services and NDU may include civilian students in their programs. Civilian participation will be consistent with relevant security considerations and appropriate directives.

4. Curriculums. PME colleges will base their curriculums on their parent Service's needs or, in the case of the NDU colleges, on their CJCS assigned missions. Each college will fulfill the appropriate joint learning objectives and generally have a curriculum that includes:

a. Mission-specific courses appropriate to the college.

b. JPME conducted within the context of the college mission. (Enclosure E identifies the joint learning areas and objectives for intermediate and senior-level PME colleges.)

c. Elective courses that enhance each student's professional and educational opportunities.

5. Resident Programs

a. Class and Seminar Mix

(1) Seminar mix at ILCs and SLCs must include at least one officer from each of the two nonhost Military Departments. Service SLCs must have a minimum of 20-percent nonhost Military Department

student representation across their US military student bodies. This percentage is computed using only US military students.

(2) NWC and ICAF must have approximately equal representation from each of the three Military Departments in their military student bodies.

(36)

(3) JFSC military student quotas in JCWS and JCSOS will be allocated in accordance with the distribution of billets by Service on the Joint Duty Assignment List (JDAL).

(4) For all intermediate and senior-level schools, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard officers will count toward Sea Service Student requirements.

b. Faculty. Faculty members will be of the highest caliber, combining the requisite functional or operational expertise with teaching ability and appropriate academic credentials.

(1) Military Faculty. Military faculty are those uniformed personnel who prepare, design, or teach PME curricula, or conduct research related to PME. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard officers count toward Sea Service military faculty requirements. Personnel performing strictly administrative functions may not be counted in faculty ratios and mixes.

(a) Faculty Mix.

1. Service Colleges.

(a) SLCs. Total nonhost Military Department faculty should be no less than 25 percent of the total military faculty. The mix of military faculty members whose primary duty is student instruction of JPME should be a minimum of 10 percent from each nonhost Military Department.

(b) ILCs. There is no prescribed percentage of nonhost Military Department faculty as a percentage of total military faculty. The mix of military faculty members whose primary duty is student instruction of JPME should be a minimum of 5 percent from each nonhost Military Department.

(c) NDU. At NWC, ICAF, and JFSC, the mix of military faculty members will be approximately one-third from each Military Department.

(b) Qualifications

1. Service Colleges

(a) SLCs. Seventy-five percent of the military faculty should be graduates of a senior-level PME program or be JSOs.

(37)

B-3 Enclosure B

(b) ILCs. Seventy-five percent of the military faculty should be graduates of an intermediate- or senior-level PME program or be JSOs.

(c) JFSC. All military faculty at JFSC should be graduates of an intermediate or senior-level PME program or have comparable joint experience.

(2) Civilian Faculty. The Services and NDU determine the appropriate number of civilians on their respective college faculties. Civilian faculty members should have strong academic records.

(3) Faculty Chairs

(a) Each NDU JPME college will establish a CJCS Professor of Military Studies Chair. CJCS chairs will be military faculty of

appropriate rank who have completed JPME (or are JSOs), have recent joint operational experience, and are capable of contributing insight into joint matters to the faculty and student body. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff approves nominees for these chairs, which will be filled from authorized military faculty positions. CJCS chairs act as a direct liaison with the Office of the Chairman and the Joint Staff.

(b) Each NDU JPME college is encouraged to establish similar Service Chief’s chairs for each of the four Services.

(c) Each Service college is encouraged, within its own resources, to establish CJCS chairs as described above, as well as similar Service Chiefs’ chairs for each nonhost Service.

(4) Student-to-Faculty Ratios

(a) Reasonable student-to-faculty ratios are essential to quality instruction. The following ratios are standards for the PME level indicated:

1. ILC/JFSC -- 4:1. 2. SLC -- 3.5:1.

(b) These ratios are computed by dividing the total number of students by the total faculty using the following guidelines:

1. Faculty. Personnel (military and civilian) who teach, prepare, or design PME curriculum or conduct research related to PME count in computation of this ratio. Personnel performing strictly

(38)

administrative functions may not be counted as faculty for computing student-to-faculty ratios.

2. Students. All (US and international) military officers and civilians assigned to the institution as students for the purpose of completing a prescribed course of instruction count as students in the computation of student-to-faculty ratios.

c. Pedagogy. PME institutions will primarily use a mix of active learning methods such as research, writing, reading, oral presentations, seminar discussions, case studies, wargaming, simulations, and

distributive learning. Passive learning methods (without student interaction) may also be used to enhance the overall educational experience. Small group learning should be the principal resident education methodology.

6. Distance Education (DE) Programs

a. General. DE Programs offer the opportunity to provide PME to a larger population than can be supported in resident facilities. DE

programs must be of sufficient substance and rigor -- measured against rigorous, realistic standards -- that they clearly achieve both the

objectives of the instruction and of JPME. Standards must

accommodate the differences in the DE environment, DE methodologies, and needs of DE students, but must achieve a level of learning

comparable to resident programs.

b. DE is the delivery of a structured curriculum to a student available at a different time or place than the teaching institution’s resident

program. It is a learning experience that is deliberate and planned and incorporates both teaching by the sponsoring institution as well as learning efforts by the student. DE provides instruction in places or times that are convenient and accessible for learners rather than teachers or teaching institutions. To accomplish this, the educational institution uses special course design, instructional techniques, methods of communication and contact with students, and organizational and administrative arrangements to create a quality learning experience. Any title or terminology for describing distance education programs is

acceptable within the constraint that all programs have an appropriate, structured curriculum.

c. JPME Learning Objectives. DE programs must meet the JPME learning objectives assigned to their respective resident institutions. DE curricula and related educational products and materials should derive from and closely parallel the Program of Instruction (POI)/curriculum of their respective resident institutions. The differences between the two

(39)

B-5 Enclosure B

types of programs are primarily in the specific methodology and techniques employed to achieve the JPME learning objectives.

d. Class and Seminar Mix. DE programs need not maintain the mix of students by Service in their overall student bodies and seminars required of resident programs. ILC and SLC DE programs should, however, seek diversity in student populations by providing enrollment opportunities to nonhost Services, Reserve Components, DOD civilians, and interagency, as appropriate.

e. Faculty

(1) Qualifications. DE program faculty will meet the same

qualification criteria as faculty in their respective resident institutions. (2) Faculty Mix. DE, which is generally based on greater

individual learning rather than seminar interaction, does not require the same faculty mix as resident programs, and specific percentages do not apply. ILCs and SLCs must show that nonhost service faculty members are an integral part of the development and implementation of their DE curriculum.

f. Student-Faculty Ratios

(1) In DE, the number of faculty members is determined by the course design and the demands of students -- what the methodology requires and how much access students need to faculty to successfully master the subject matter. ILCs and SLCs must show proper faculty staffing for the methodology being used and that all students have reasonable access to faculty subject matter expertise and counseling.

(2) In determining appropriate DE faculty staffing levels, institutions should consider all faculty actively participating in the development and implementation of the program.

g. Pedagogy

(1) Current DE methodology can deliver content by text, sound, video, live streaming, slides, pictures, and on-site and video conferencing seminars. ILCs and SLCs may choose methodologies and techniques appropriate to their Service, subject content, and student populations.

(2) DE programs must demonstrate they provide their students with an understanding of other Services’ perspectives in building a joint perspective. ILCs and SLCs must show they have a valid distance

(40)

demonstrate through evaluation of student performance and outcomes assessment that students are acquiring the desired joint perspective.

(41)

C-1 Enclosure C

ENCLOSURE C PME REVIEW PROCESS

1. Overview. An ongoing review process ensures PME satisfies CJCS statutory requirements and guarantees the effectiveness of professional military education. The process places particular emphasis on joint officer management education and is made up of four components: (1) feedback mechanisms, (2) update mechanisms, (3) execution evaluations, and (4) JPME assessments

2. Feedback Mechanisms. Feedback on PME curricula currency,

quality, and validity is available from a variety of sources. These sources include the combined actions of the individual colleges, joint education conferences, Military Education Coordination Council (MECC) meetings, and formal feedback systems used by the various PME institutions.

a. Individual Schools. Each PME institution should have a well-defined, vigorous curriculum review program that accommodates near and long-term changes in the PME environment.

b. Joint Education Conferences. The Joint Staff or an educational institution periodically hosts joint educational conferences on topics of interest to the joint warfighting community and supporting educational institutions.

c. MECC. The MECC serves as an advisory body to the Director, Joint Staff (DJS), on joint education issues, and consists of the MECC Principals and a supporting MECC Working Group. The purpose of the MECC is to address key educational issues of interest to the joint

education community, promote cooperation and collaboration among the MECC member institutions, and coordinate joint education initiatives.

(1) MECC Principals. The MECC Principals are the DJS

(Chairman); DDJS-ME (Secretary); the presidents, commandants and directors of the joint and Service universities and colleges; and the heads of any other JPME-certified or accredited institutions. The MECC

Chairman may invite representatives from the CINCs and other organizations, as appropriate.

(2) MECC Working Group. A working group comprised of dean’s-level representatives of the MECC Principals. The working group is chaired by the Chief, Joint Education Branch, J-7. Service Chiefs and CINCs are invited to send non-voting participants to all MECC Working Group meetings to provide feedback to improve the educational process.

(42)

The MECC working Group Chair may invite other non-voting

participants, as appropriate. The working group performs the following functions:

(a) Support the MECC Principals’ meetings, to include developing the agenda, preparing papers and briefings, and documenting and disseminating meeting results.

(b) Support MECC-approved initiatives, to include the formulation of subgroups as may be required to implement approved initiatives.

(c) Promote collaboration and cooperation among MECC institutions by serving as a forum to address items of mutual interest.

(3) MECC Meetings. A meeting of the MECC Principals will be convened by the DJS at least once annually. The MECC Working Group will meet at least once prior to each MECC Principals meeting and on other occasions as may be deemed necessary by the Working Group. Minutes will be published for all MECC Principals and Working Group meetings and distributed to the MECC members and other concerned parties.

(4) MECC Initiatives. The MECC Principals may approve and implement initiatives that are within the authority of its members. Actions requiring the concurrence of OSD, the combatant commands, Defense agencies, the Joint Staff, and/or the Services will be forwarded to the DJS for formal coordination. The lead Joint Staff element for coordinating such actions is J-7, Joint Education Branch.

3. Update Mechanisms. The PME update process involves all elements of the PME system and the using communities (i.e., Services, CINCs, and DOD agencies).

a. Policy Review. The DDJS-ME will initiate a thorough review of the Chairman's PME policies as reflected in this instruction at least

triennially. That review will involve the schools, the Services, the commands, and other affected agencies.

b. Curricula Reviews. Each Service and joint college will regularly review its curriculum and initiate revisions as needed to remain current, effective, and in compliance with policy guidance.

c. Special Areas of Emphasis (SAEs). SAEs highlight the concerns of OSD, the Services, combatant commands, Defense agencies, and Joint Staff regarding coverage of specific joint subject matters in the PME

(43)

C-3 Enclosure C

colleges. Colleges will evaluate each SAE for inclusion in their curricula; however, inclusion is not required. A list of SAEs is formulated annually by the Joint Education Branch, J-7, and approved by the DJS as follows: J-7/JEB invites OSD, the Services, combatant commands, Defense

agencies, and Joint Staff to submit proposed additions and deletions to the current SAE list with justification. J-7/JEB submits a new draft SAE List to the Fall MECC Working Group for review. Subject matter that is adequately covered in existing curricula will not be included on the SAE List. Based on the MECC Working Group review, J-7/JEB forwards the new SAE List for DJS approval. The approved SAE list is distributed to the joint and Service colleges annually in January.

4. JPME Assessments. Periodic assessments of JPME are conducted for all levels of military education. JPME at the precommissioning and primary levels is assessed through the triennial reporting requirement (paragraph 3, Appendix A to Enclosure E). Assessments of JPME at all Service and joint ILCs and SLCs are conducted utilizing the Process for Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE). The PAJE prescribes procedural guidelines for program assessment of institutions seeking JPME

accreditation. At the GO/FO level, assessment consists of an annual review of curricula of the CAPSTONE course. Each of these assessment measures is a tool for ensuring that the prescribed joint educational requirements at each level are met. The results of these assessments are also used to update educational policy as appropriate.

5. Conclusion. As prescribed in reference a, the Secretary of Defense, with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, periodically reviews and revises the curricula of joint educational programs to enhance the education and training of officers in joint matters. Capitalizing on existing activities, the aforementioned review process broadly identifies the components necessary to ensure that PME in general, and JPME in particular, are current and properly executed.

(44)

(45)

D-1 Enclosure D

ENCLOSURE D RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Overview. This enclosure outlines responsibilities within the Armed Forces for compliance with prescribed military educational policies. The GNA, as amended, prescribes the authority and responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Specific duties and responsibilities within the PME system are pursuant to GNA, DOD and Military

Department regulations.

2. General. The success of the PME system is a shared responsibility. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, CINCs, directors of Defense agencies,

commanders, administrators, and educators must impress upon their officers the importance of PME objectives. Officers must be concerned with both individual professional development and improved national security posture. The success of professional military education relies on this group to:

a. Manage unique PME requirements.

b. Recognize the importance of a framework to integrate military education.

c. Establish procedures ensuring officers with potential for increased responsibility attend PME schools in residence.

d. Assign officers who are expert in Service matters and educated or experienced in joint matters to JDAs.

e. Identify officers with the capacity for strategic thought and then develop this ability.

f. Ensure appropriate joint emphasis in the education of all officers, regardless of billet.

g. Provide the resources and learning environment conducive to the study of the use of military power.

h. Ensure that proper attention is given to total force requirements relative to PME.

3. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for the following:

(46)

a. Formulating policies for coordinating the military education of members of the Armed Forces.

b. Advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense by periodically reviewing and revising the curriculum of each school of the National Defense University to enhance the education and training of officers in joint matters.

c. Providing primary oversight of the joint educational process. d. Serving as the principal military adviser to the Secretary of Defense on PME matters.

e. Approving the charter and mission of NDU and its component institutions.

f. Recommending to the Secretary of Defense a nominee for President, NDU.

g. Approving the President, NDU’s nomination for the NWC, ICAF, and JFSC commandants.

h. Approving the CJCS Chairs for NWC, ICAF, JFSC, and the Service colleges.

i. Advising the Military Departments on NDU’s budget needs.

j. Advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense in promulgating a uniform cost accounting system for use by the Secretaries of the Military Departments in preparing budget requests for the operation of PME schools.

k. Authorized (as delegated by the Secretary of Defense) Title 10 civilian faculty hiring authority for NDU.

l. Periodically reporting trends from PAJE ILC and SLC curriculum reviews and other matters relating to PME to the Secretary of Defense. m. Periodically providing Joint Staff action officers from the various directorates, as available and on request from a school, as subject matter experts, to provide briefings, lectures, and papers to enhance and extend the PME process.

(47)

D-3 Enclosure D

a. Managing the content, quality, and conduct of the Service’s PME programs at all levels within the guidelines of the military educational framework and associated implementing policies contained in this document.

b. Providing military faculty and students within the guidelines of this document.

c. Providing direct budgetary and facility support for its own educational programs and for NDU programs as follows:

(1) The Army -- NDU main campus, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.

(2) The Navy -- JFSC, Norfolk, Virginia.

d. Ensuring that Service JPME programs meet Phase I criteria and objectives.

e. Determining appropriate active duty, international officer, Reserve Component, and civilian participation in their respective Service colleges.

f. Approving Service Chief chairs for NWC, ICAF, and JFSC.

5. Providing reports to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the joint educational programs at the precommissioning and primary-levels of JPME. Reports using the format in Annex A to Appendix A to

Enclosure E are due 1 October 2003 and triennially thereafter.

6. Director, Joint Staff (DJS). The DJS will:

a. Supervise the Deputy Director, Joint Staff, for Military Education (DDJS-ME).

b. Serve as Chairman, MECC. c. Serve as Chairman, PAJE team.

d. Supervise the budgeting and execution of an assistance effort to make Joint Staff subject matter experts available to the schools to enhance and extend PME in areas of policy and practice too new to be covered in current curriculum.

7. Office of the Director, Joint Staff. The Special Assistant for GO/FO Matters will monitor the attendance of newly promoted GO/FOs at the CAPSTONE course.